This post is about the fact that there is no scientific consensus about human-caused climate change (Oreskes' and Cook's reports have been criticized often enough; the advertized 97% consensus is at the very least an exaggeration). There is no consensus, but one side of the argument is villified. This has all the hallmarks of a media-campaign, not of an honest discussion among scientists. Furthermore, there are no climate change deniers among scientists, none that I know of at least. Climate has always changed and will continue to do so, with or without us. Furthermore, I made very clear that alarmbells should ring about thousands of ways we destroy the environment on which there is consensus, but those bells we don't hear. You rightly point to a potential decreased ability for food-production @torico; there are studies that say the sediment has changed drastically since the industrial revolution. But it's not clear why this is. There is however a high probability that it is the result of intensive farming, made possible by automation and the use of GMO's, not global warming. I've heard about really alarming studies on this, saying we have "soil-food" left for only 60 more harvests in some agricultural areas, like Western Europe; we should be concerned, yes.

Climate skeptics and alarmists are dug in their own trenches, both have multiple websites, constantly "debunking" each other's claims. I know of enough scientists I admire and respect for years (Freeman Dyson comes to mind) who at least have doubts about the alarmists side. And there is a media campaign, mainstream corporate media, the kind I inherently don't trust, against the skeptics. That's all. CO2 is plant-food. The governments that sound this alarm are the same governments that come with fake non-solutions to the problem, like emission trading. Those same governments love to see us bickering like this. Those same governments have lied to you and me for as long as I can remember. No one believes the boy that cried wolf, whether there's a wolf or not. Now you can wave with reports all you like; I can dig up a rebuttal for most if not all of them. But I won't pretend to know which one is true. There is however a high probability that the governments aren't totally trustworthy in any message they spout out. We agree that humans are destroying the planet, I've been really clear about that. At this rate we won't survive in the way we'd like. THAT alarm is true. Oh, and so are the quotes mentioned in the video, taken from the IPCC itself; drought and extreme weather are NOT anthropogenic climate change related, or at least, they attach low probability to that. I know because I've read some of them; highly boring stuff. Here's the summary on drought:

"Drought in a changing climate: AR5 and recent scientific advances

• Drought is a complex phenomenon affected by changes in the hydrological cycle and producing a web of impacts across many sectors and potentially leading to land degradation and forest dieback;
• The IPCC AR5 (2013) stressed low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought, owing to lack of direct observations, dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice, as well as difficulties in distinguishing long-term climate change from decadal-scale drought variability;
• Recent years have shown substantial methodological developments to monitor and assess drought in a changing climate."

https://wg1.ipcc.ch/presentations/Sbsta_drought.pdf

Do I think we should try our hardest, as societies, to reduce human caused greenhouse gas emissions? Of course I do; again, I'm not blind to the harm we do to the planet, and even if there's the smallest chance the worse predictions come true, it would be stupid not to act. But that's exactly what this whole alarmist campaign amounts to: we're not acting, we're worsening the situation. And don't go blame the so called deniers for that; blame the political and financial powers that refuse to admit that we will need to shrink the economy instead of grow it, we need to stop making cheap products just to keep consumerism going, we should try diverse farming, intercropping instead of monocultures, vertical farming, the list goes on; they won't go there because all real solutions cost money, so as long as the big companies make their economies grow, they're happy and so are most people. There are real solutions and we are smart enough to co exist with nature. It's not a matter of technology or a lack of basic willpower. It's a bit more complicated that that I'm affraid, and I won't simplify it by joining either of the trenches. As things stand now, we'll solve it when there's enough money to be made from it, and in the meantime money will be made from the crisis, perceived or real.

This post wasn't about who's right or who's wrong about this in the first place; it's about those trenches and how they're being kept alive. I clearly failed in conveying that, for which I'm sorry. I do appreciate your responses, it's made some things clearer for me. I hope you all forgive me for responding with this broad sweep instead of answering you all one by one.